Breaking the chains, winning the games, and saving Western Civilization.

Friday, July 12, 2013

Why feminized societies will fail

The Female Imperative is too exclusionary to permit sufficient social cohesiveness. From a VP reader in China:

An interesting experiment - I decided to test Vox's idea that women working was bad for society and gender relations in general. I can get away with little sociological experiments occasionally as I am a [REDACTED] teacher in China. I teach high school boys and girls. The sample size here was about 12 girls and 9 boys. Recently we had "women's day" here in the PRC and on this day at about 10am I brought in a bunch of snacks and drinks for the class. Teenagers are always hungry so when I busted these out I got their full attention. Since it was women's day I assembled the snacks and drinks out on the main table and let the girls choose first. The foodstuffs here were packs of spiced meat, chicken feet (a favorite here), and various and sundry other things. Girls picked first - one bag each and one drink. They naturally took the best stuff on the first cut and the boys got what was left. An interesting thing happened.

The girls refused to share anything *except* with the two most popular boys in the class. Those two were pretty much free to travel between the desks eating as they wanted from whatever bag the girls had on their desks. The less popular boys either didn't try or were flatly refused in a not very nice way. The best food here went to the two boys (and one in particular) who dominated the social scene while the remaining seven sat with their bag of lesser desirable foodstuffs.

Two days later with the same class I declared a boy's day and broke out snacks again, approximately the same mix as before. This time however I allowed the boys to choose first and same as before, the first crew took the best things leaving the dregs for the rest. However, after everything was distributed the girls, all of them, visited and stuck near the boys with the best snacks. As the boys coming first were random, it wasn't the two most popular that got to pick first. Overall though there was a far greater amount of mixing, the social scene was much more evenly distributed boys and girls, and moreover, everyone got to eat some of the best food. Even the gamma/delta/omega boys got female attention and begun to act a little more confident. They had something the girls *wanted* which inverted the power structure and made the girls nicer as compared to the observed harpy bitchiness encountered two days prior. There was a lot less snapping (which the girls engaged in on womens day when they had the food and a less popular boy wanted something) and what snapping existed was playful rather than malicious. Even the ugly girls got a share of the good stuff, exactly the reverse of the boys experience. I can easily state the overall happiness of the class was greater on this day then when the girls had first pick. In other words when the girls have the power - they don't use it well and the whole class suffered. Nothing was even close to fair, and a super majority of the boys are left out doing nothing productive unless you consider sitting alone being resentful productive.

While I realize this is hardly on par with a real actual experiment with controls, white lab coats, etc. it was quite interesting to watch this play out on a micro basis. I don't think it is a stretch to imagine that something akin to this is occurring in the outside world continuously. Let the boys pick first and they naturally and happily provide for the girls. This requires no coaxing or incentives. Let the girls have the power and they naturally shut out all but the most popular boys, leaving the rest to solitude. Everyone was a lot less happy also.

This, writ large, is exactly what we're seeing develop in the West. Ever wonder how polygamy got established in the Middle East? Here's a hint: it wasn't because of the men, it was because of the women. Remember, it wasn't the women who drove monogamy in the West, but rather, the Catholic Church.

64 comments:

This can be observed on a large scale now. Marriage 1.0 was boy's day and Marriage 2.0 is girl's day. Any attempt to introduce real fairness (rather than the kind that is noble sounding cover for the female imperative) is met with hostility.

Very interesting experiment and it's similar with how today the higher-value males (especially the apex alphas or sigmas) are cleaning up in terms of women, money and power.

The majority of the female herd has been convinced or already wanted to follow the feminist message of more power for women than men and the "raunch culture" message of using sex to get attention from top men.

Also, the more educated and ambitious women of the female herd have been convinced to sacrifice or postpone their desire for relationships and children in order to pursue career, fun or other types of girl power, even though many women would prefer to pursue the former.

In the sphere we often like to rail against the feminists and femcentric culture, and rightfully so.

But not enough attention is paid to the apex males--who have huge influence on the world--and really love the world the way it is and will continue doing so as long as a collapse doesn't happen.

This story seems unbelievable for me. I mean how many chicken feet do you get in a snack box? It seems like the interactions in either case is a embellished unless its the custom of Chinese youths to nurse their snacks.

I don't necessarily disagree with the difference between men and women dominated cultures though.

I do recall various men's ability to get women to loan them their homework in high school, and how it was directly related to their relative value inside the same hierarchy. Whereas most men couldn't give a toss who they shared their homework with.

Wow. Any woman reading this, if she's honest about it, recognizes this dynamic in any female-dominated situation.

I bet if you did a variation on this experiment with males and females separated, you'd get much the same result. Let the most dominant girls have first crack at the good snacks, and they won't share with any of the other girls. Let the most dominant boys have first crack at the snacks, and they share with all the other boys.

You know, this little study also demonstrates why communism, Socialism, or any other collectivist ideology does not work with feminism. If the Left-wing was truly rational, they would outright reject feminism on the spot as it is destructive to their greater goals.

This is awesome. It's one thing to know how it works, but another to see it play out, and I can just picture it. Same thing happens at social gatherings with single women doling out their attention, except that they've learned to be less obvious about it.

Reminds me of the way we had to give each of the girls a Valentine's Day card when I was in grade school, and the girls had to have one for each boy. If they hadn't had that rule, I know which 2-3 boys would have gotten a card from practically every girl, while the rest of the boys might have gotten 0-4. I suppose the ugliest girls would have gotten left out too, but I bet the boys would have spread the wealth more evenly without being forced.

So, here is a similar experiment. My wife HATES it when I compare women to the dynamics I see in our backyard chicken flock, but then she turns around and uses the examples herself.

Bring out a treat when you only have a flock of hens, and they will all drop whatever they are doing to chase the new treat. They will drop their favorite food if another hen nearby has something in her mouth-if that other hen is being chased by still other hens who don't have a treat yet.

There are plenty of treats for every hen. But they will ignore the other treats if more than one other hen shows interest in a particular treat. The screeching and chasing all around the backyard is hugely amusing.

Yet, introduce a rooster, and everything changes. If he finds a worm or other treat, instead of eating it, he calls over his hens and shares it with them. He'll protect them from harm do the point of death. He shows them where to lay eggs. And so on.

None of the hens call him over to share their treats. However, they all submit to him when he comes near. He also doesn't get involved in their pecking order and inner squables.

Man, don't get me going on the pecking order....but that is extremely instructive to watch as well. Sometimes I can't help narrating it with human sentences which cracks up my family.

As a fellow chicken farmer who grew up around livestock, I'm convinced that feminism (and most of liberalism) could only exist in a mostly-urban society. If you grow up around animals, you can't help but notice the dynamics you describe (not to mention many implications for HBD) but city kids are clueless about such things. Owning spayed and neutered pets doesn't cut it.

I had a female boss who was very good. However, I always have decent luck with females in general. I'm starting to realize how good I've had it... multiple friends are trying to stay out of jail over child support issues - and one is actually in jail right now on just the accusation of his wife and stepchild.

Unfortunately, there's also an amazing male dynamic that goes on with buck goats. The promiscuity, random raping, pissing on beards, bleating, blubbering and lip-curling have to be the most obnoxious male stereotypes I've seen. Hilarious.

I posted that awhile ago - glad you got a kick out of it. For what it's worth I have done the same experiment in 2 other classes with similar results. In one case I skewed the outcome by pretending to randomly select the least popular boys first. They did speak to the girls more but they tended to give away too much too fast. The more popular boys were less willing to simply hand over the goods as quickly which meant they got even more female attention.

I would hazard that Vox is referencing the stories of how the Catholic priests worked very hard to get Charlemagne to understand monogamy. The Frankish kings had developed a serial polygamy. Although Justin Martyr and Iraneous wrote against it, it took will into the 9th century at least to get the royals to understand one man + one woman for life, a little thing they only ever sometimes understood.

would hazard that Vox is referencing the stories of how the Catholic priests worked very hard to get Charlemagne to understand monogamy. The Frankish kings had developed a serial polygamy. Although Justin Martyr and Iraneous wrote against it, it took will into the 9th century at least to get the royals to understand one man + one woman for life, a little thing they only ever sometimes understood.

I remember when I worked in an office, any shift in personal that promoted a woman to a place where she would oversee the productivity of other women led to a lot of anxiety by the underling women. Privately and not so privately they would make it known that they prefer a male boss. Some of the reasons, men are actually more sensitive to their female issues, men are not ruled by emotion, and men don't over compensate (Janet Reno and Janet Napolitano anyone?).

The anxiety felt by these women without fail always materialized for real in the behavior of their new boss.

Men provide and women take what they can to survive. This scenario plays out without fail no matter what the situation, school, work, relationships, you name it.

Polygyny seems to have flourished during the time of the patriarchs, a time when the land had a surplus of high-N former temple prostitutes, perhaps with children, who needed husbands... a condition remarkably similar to the environment we see today.

The problem today is how to get a decent man to marry a high-N butthexed former temple prostitute with a load of debt from her time in the temple of higher learning and some other man's child.

The obvious solution is to repackage women into harems (3-5 women? Isaiah 4:1 says 7) and re-brand it as a special marriage-model only a real leader could handle. A harem of average looking women will be able to attract a guy who would never willingly marry any of them individually. The game that could be run on the women within such a marriage would result in the women improving (losing weight, etc) and they'd be happier because of it.

Economically this makes a lot of sense and offers a higher standard of living for all concerned and more stability for the children. Three to five full-time wage earners living together provides a higher standard of living than anything else any of them would be capable of doing even if they could bail and find a monogamous partner so the incentive would be to stay rather than seek to leave. The worse the economy gets the better this will look.

1. The behavior of two snack times, of one classroom, in China, of a group of hormonal teenagers, cannot seriously be applied to society as a whole or "writ large, is exactly what we're seeing develop in the West." That is, unless society as a whole is seen as the teenagers who inhabit malls.

2. Taking into actual societies as wholes: Men have ruled most of the world for most of history. Given the current state of things, I'm not sure that's flattering. For one of many things, I doubt women have invented the idea of "whoever kills the most people wins" an inter-national argument.

I'm not saying women should necessarily rule. I'm not saying they have to work. But it is absurd to insist that they cannot govern, or that they should not work, or that men have done a better job of being in charge because they shared more chicken feet (per the argument cited here.) Would love to see the evidence supporting the supposition that polygamy was invented by women.

3. For a list of some societies ruled by women,(which have existed) go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_matrilineal_or_matrilocal_societies

: Men have ruled most of the world for most of history. Given the current state of things, I'm not sure that's flattering. For one of many things, I doubt women have invented the idea of "whoever kills the most people wins" an inter-national argument.

I think there's a lot of problems with your ideas here. One with just this section is that you're talking a fantasy in which men aren't an imminent force to deal with. It's absurd on its face. The only reason you can entertain the fantasy of women ruling is that most men are currently choosing to allow some women to lead to some extent and are acting as enforcers to keep other men in line. It's fantasy to think world history could have developed with women in charge, because without the social structures built and sustained by men everything falls apart and women go back to being property.

I absolutely admit men are "an imminent force to deal with." Unfortunately, they have at times used this force (I assume you are using "force" to mean "greater physical power") abusively. As in, without respecting women as necessary partners in the survival of their species, whoever's ruling it.

I don't think many women indulge in fantasies of world power, which I think is the main reason they have not attempted that quest as much as men have. It is in men's nature to "subdue the earth" as it is women's nature to nurture life. I would suggest that if the girls in this classroom were surrounded by children--rather than "imminent forces to deal with" i.e. male peers--they would be sharing snacks more efficiently.

And I see where your theory on polygamy comes from; I would appreciate a link to an article supporting and detailing that theory. Grazie!

"fc6cedc2-d6a8-11e2-b860-000bcdcb471e said...This story seems unbelievable for me. I mean how many chicken feet do you get in a snack box? It seems like the interactions in either case is a embellished unless its the custom of Chinese youths to nurse their snacks."

Well for starters the chicken feet don't come in a box, they come in shrink wrapped heavy plastic to lengthen shelf life. As for how many come that depends on the size of the bag you chose to buy. The ones I bought tended to have 12-14 as I recall but larger ones are available certainly. One kid can eat several and eating an entire medium size bag of 12 is not uncommon. The snacks that I selected had to be of a size that would facilitate sharing so I selected items that contained several units. White rabbit candies, Pocky, a bags of beef jerky were favorites but no, I didn't keep a full list and my observations did not include me running around with a clip board to see exactly who ate what from whom. I watched the general mixing of the crowd and the attitudes on display. The common theme was to take the bag and open it on the desk in front of them (they tend to do this naturally) and as it was a break they could move about the classroom at will. Verdict: things were more fair when the boys got the best stuff. Take it or leave it, that is what happened.

As for Chinese teenagers they do tend to share more than American kids (comparing to my school days). The class group literally spends every day from 7am to 9pm together in the same room more or less. 1/2 day on Saturdays with Sundays off. Such is school in the PRC.

Every class has a pecking order and popular structure just like you would expect of course, with only one very awkward boy truly ostracized in the class I performed the experiment on. He essentially didn't move when the girls had the food open on their tables - but he did get lots of visitors when he had the only collection of beef jerky the girls wanted.

"2. Taking into actual societies as wholes: Men have ruled most of the world for most of history. Given the current state of things, I'm not sure that's flattering. For one of many things, I doubt women have invented the idea of "whoever kills the most people wins" an inter-national argument."Who cares if it's flattering. If your society is run by women and it won't fight back then your going to get conquered by a society ruled by men that will fight. It's simple nature.

"I'm not saying women should necessarily rule. I'm not saying they have to work. But it is absurd to insist that they cannot govern, or that they should not work, or that men have done a better job of being in charge because they shared more chicken feet (per the argument cited here.) "

There was a women in charge of Hawaii when there was a small insurrection by the children of the missionaries. Her generals advised her to put down the rebellion with force but she preferred to ask the US to put down the rebellion as she didn't want to fight. The result was Hawaii being annexed by the US and the Hawaiians subjugated by men who were willing to fight.

Women almost always dither face of force and are generally horrible leaders because of it. The most recent example is Hillary and Benghazi.

"2. Taking into actual societies as wholes: Men have ruled most of the world for most of history. Given the current state of things, I'm not sure that's flattering. For one of many things, I doubt women have invented the idea of "whoever kills the most people wins" an inter-national argument."

Now, who was it who came up with "come back with your shield or on it"?

Who was handing out white feathers?

Who, throughout history, have shamed and incited their men into wars, and then either quietly reaped the extra resources or fell prey to invading armies?

"Let's you and him fight" has been around since cavemen were fighting over a potential mate, to Helen of Troy, to the White feather Brigade. Plausible deniability is the main component of a woman's proxy violence.

During the War Between the States, women hissed at men who had doubts about the whole conflict.

People are imperfect; there will always war.Personally, I think if the whole world was a matriarchy, the slaughter would be horrendous. Look at it this way: the worst slaughter in the world has been by leftists, and leftism is female.

I have read some interesting studies around women and men and group theories, perhaps another experiment you could try is to have two groups of students meet.

The researchers indicated that the women work well within their group, and males tended to bridge groups. It would be interesting to see how the intermingling of groups would play out.

The other idea would be to run the same experiment where the less popular boys were told not to hand out so much so quickly (apply a little game). And see if that attracted more girls. I would imagine the girls are competing unconsciously with each other to see what they can extract from the boys.

"This, writ large, is exactly what we're seeing develop in the West. Ever wonder how polygamy got established in the Middle East? Here's a hint: it wasn't because of the men, it was because of the women. Remember, it wasn't the women who drove monogamy in the West, but rather, the Catholic Church."

Meanwhile, the middle eastern religions are driving violence as a way to get those women they're not able to have because of polygamy.

"For one of many things, I doubt women have invented the idea of "whoever kills the most people wins" an inter-national argument. "

I'm seriously baffled as to what you think was an incentive strong enough to convince men to go fight wars if not to get laid. "For a good cause" has very little meaning to a young man whom doesn't have a family to protect yet, but only 'an idea' of a future family to protect. Furthermore, such thinking would prune itself out over time if it resulted in anything other than increased chances to successfully procreate.

I'm seriously baffled as to what you think was an incentive strong enough to convince men to go fight wars if not to get laid. "For a good cause" has very little meaning to a young man whom doesn't have a family to protect yet, but only 'an idea' of a future family to protect. Furthermore, such thinking would prune itself out over time if it resulted in anything other than increased chances to successfully procreate.

Let me get this straight... The men in history who have had multiple wives/women did so because women came to them for protection, or, as Weouro put it, "The best way for women to survive was to glom onto the most dominant man they could find." From this, it seems we are to both pity the man who had so many women glomming onto him, and to admire the dominant man who protected (I guess) all these women. In this case, you want both pity and admiration.

The Observer states that "women have both shamed and incited their men into wars" while stagedreality notes he is "seriously baffled as to what you think was an incentive strong enough to convince men to go fight wars if not to get laid."

Here, men get credit for doing the work of fighting the war, but apparently under duress from women who (somehow)used mere shaming and incitations to coax men to fight battles, or promises of sex.(?) So in this, men get credit for doing the work, but are whining that women, in some way, forced them to.

C'mon guys. I'm about done with sloppy emotional male arguments based on anecdotal evidence. On behalf of my gender, I'm sorry for whatever woman mistreated you that causes you to sit kvetching against them here. However, since you owe your existence to a woman (your mom), and owe any possibility of posterity to women as well, may I suggest leaving off complaining and try acting honorably, towards women but more importantly, towards yourselves. You are all, I'm sure, capable of more manful pursuits than whining in these comments about how poorly the weaker sex has treated you. With power comes responsibility. You can't really get both pity _and_ admiration. Decide what you want, and live accordingly. Live honorably and you will be treated with honor.

Since, again, we're just working with anecdotal evidence here, I hardly believe that the women of Sparta had much choice in whether or not their sons went to war. (See Lordship above, for instance.) But having no choice, as a mom, saying "Come back with your shield or on it" would be a way of saying (since there was no way of avoiding their presence in the conflict): "Be brave. Be strong. Fight for a cause bigger than yourself. Whether you live or die, do so with honor."

"Women get credit for childbearing and creating a nurturing environment at home, but apparently under duress from men who used fear and outright violence to keep them as virtual slaves. C'mon feminists. I'm about done with sloppy emotional female arguments based on anecdotal evidence. On behalf of my gender, I'm sorry for whatever men mistreated you or your mothers that causes you to hate us and hate your own nature even more. It's true that you can get both pity and admiration...just ask the unmarried mother I know who had to endure two months of hospital bed rest to bring twins safely into the world. However, since you owe your existence to a man (your father), and owe any possibility of posterity and security to men as well, may I suggest leaving off complaining and try acting honorably, towards men but more importantly, towards yourselves. And please stop with the nagging and shaming language."

Again, taking one reason for an event, and claiming it is the only reason. Did I say pressure by women was the only reason the average man was pressured into war? Of course not; the machinations of elite men also come into play, like LoA has pointed out, and I also note you commit apex fallacy for blaming average Joe for being conscripted for the ambitions of his kind.

More shaming language. If our arguments are so sloppy and emotional, address them. To quote:

"Charge of Irascibility (Code Red)

Discussion: The target is accused of having anger management issues. Whatever negative emotions he is accused of having are assumed to be unjustifiable. Examples:

“You’re bitter!”“You need to get over your anger at women.”“You are so negative!”

Again, bullshit. Also, prove that these anecdotes are the exception to the rule, rather than the rule.

"Since, again, we're just working with anecdotal evidence here, I hardly believe that the women of Sparta had much choice in whether or not their sons went to war."

No, but they certainly had a hand in encouraging those recalcitrant to obey. In the case of Sparta, it's explicitly stated that it was used to shame men into going to war. Your explanation is conjecture, with no historical basis.

I also notice you conveniently ignored the case of the White Feather Brigade, which was explicitly set up to shame men into fighting in World War 1, or Bob Wallace's example of women shaming men who were less than enthusiastic about the American Civil War.

I also find it amusing that you think elite women have never had any influence on the decisions of their fathers, husbands, or brothers.

But then as always, plausible deniability is one of the main reasons less than scrupulous women love to play "let's you and him fight" with their husbands, boyfriends, fathers, brothers, white knights, etc, in a game of proxy violence.

While I agree with The Observer that it wasn't the only motivator, I definitely think that it was a main one.

Look. A tribe, community, country is at war. Do you really think that the average 13-18 year old gives a damn about an enemy they've never seen, will defend a community they haven't grown to appreciate?

No.

They have hormones raging, an instinct to protect, and women to impress. Add on top of this that most rights of passage involve blood and death, and you have some jacked up teens ready to fight and fornicate. They're told to go be a man, earn their place, and then come back (if still alive) to marry the woman.

I mean, TLC, it really seems as if you're projecting the learned values of masculinity in older people onto a young generation of fresh potential troops needed on the front lines before the country is wiped out.

. I would suggest that if the girls in this classroom were surrounded by children--rather than "imminent forces to deal with" i.e. male peers--they would be sharing snacks more efficiently.

I doubt it. The favored children would likely receive a greater share from a greater number of the girls.

Anyway, you're extrapolating from a fantasy, same as earlier. Sure if the classroom was full of children there is a posibility the girls would behave differently, but it isn't. If the world were full of munchkins and women, I'm sure history would be different than it is, but that's a fantasy.

And I see where your theory on polygamy comes from; I would appreciate a link to an article supporting and detailing that theory. Grazie!

I got it from a book on world history/prehistory. i cant remember the title. I also gave women a little more autonomy than they were presented as having in the book. In the book they were more like cattle who don't really choose or glom onto anything but are captured, subdued, sold,etc. I figured the smarter, better looking ones would try to work angles to improve their lots in life.

Hint: feminism is a luxury for societies, which eventually runs it out of being able to afford it. No country adopted feminism without first being able to afford the drastic hits to productivity and morality it would take. Once a society was able to afford it, it was often adopted mostly because Men unfortunately did not understand the reasons why women were so rightly kept out of power in the public sphere ("The law wisely deprives from women that which nature gave too much [power]").

Men figured that women were just like them, and that women could fairly judge situations and vote accordingly, but the truth is that's just not true. Women vote for what benefits women, Men vote for what benefits everyone.

Eventually, with the decrease in productivity, a country/society either needs to technologically develop beyond the decreases in productivity, or fall to third world status. It is little wonder that many Anglosphere countries are doing a little bit of both at the moment.

Posted early due to comments occasionally getting eaten at other sites (thus I don't post too much in one go)

As for the two questions I wrote above, if the answer to fixing "poor" was to buy a limousine, because every owner of one didn't have financial problems (or were in better shape, at least) then no one would ever be poor. The adaptation is that if all a third world country had to do was adopt feminism to become first world, it would be the easiest way to make sure no one starved again. However, this also doesn't work, as feminism is just needless and wasteful empowerment of women. This takes the form of government do-little jobs for women, or forcing companies to hire women (qualified or not) at the expense of Men. Even such "benevolent" "soft feminism" attemps such as only micro-lending to women didn't work, as the money was merely squandered and nothing came of it.

In the end, feminists fatten themselves not realize they are on borrowed time. Fear not, in about 7 years or less, a system collapse will occur and we'll see women everywhere claim to never have been feminist or thought negatively of Men.

I'm personally having trouble with the hypothesis that women clamored for polygamy when I consider the results. Sending the rival men (e.g. Uriah) off to war to be killed, bitter rivalries between wives (Sarah and Hagar, Rachel and Leah, Hannah and Peninnah, David's wives, etc..), and to top it off, the Islamic (and other) habit of either murdering or castrating the rival men.

My hunch is that womens' aquiescence in polygamy has a lot to do with basic self- preservation, not any desire for sharing a husband with other women. I just can't see any woman clamoring for a system that gets her father, brothers, and lover (s) killed or castrated to fulfill the desires of the guy who can kill the mostest.

Or, put differently, let's not design our lives around the barbarity of the past, OK?

I believe the source article does not prove polygyny is caused by women. But rather, in a more elemental way, women having power and making the choices for a mate causes the pain. Polygyny, in a society where women are protected by their fathers and then passed off by arranged marriage to their husbands, has existed, but the resulting polygyny still was very rare. The issue is women choice/power. When they have it, society just doesn't survive.

Looking at the Biblical model from a law perspective, one can see that there was none of this egalitarian bullcrap. There existed protections for rape only based on the woman's classification: virgin, married/betrothed, non-virgin unmarried. In the case of the unmarried non-virgin, there was no prescribed punishment/solution. This indicates a lack of protection at law. Considering the marriage arrangement as endorsed by Christ's example with His Church was one of betrothal and arranged marriage, this would indicate a woman without choice, protected by the men naturally in her life.

I apologize for this being off the tread but I'd like to ask if Remo would be willing to share his experience teaching in China with my daughter? We'd like to hear about it from someone who has been there.Thanks.

Perceived social status is also relative. A 7 looks better to a 5 than an 8. Women's natural predilection for higher status men is constant, it will just always be so. So as society forces men down and women up, even just in perception, fewer men qualify by women's standards. Which means more women chase fewer men.

This is why women can say there are no good men left, while being surrounded by dependable betas and deltas who outnumber the alpha bastards she screws by more than 5-1.

Completely agree and I can testify that I have seen this happen where I am from. Not with food but with water (when there is no tap water and you have to collect water in buckets or so).

And another thing I want to add about my observations with water collection is that males work together better to collect water. The waste less water when collecting it and they just get the concept of sharing better.

When the women go first each woman usually has a certain amount of containers and in her mind she should fill ALL her containers and then the next person can go. Just so you understand the water being collected is a finite amount of water so it is not like it is unlimited. And she will even want to fill soda bottle sized containers simply because it is hers.

When the males go first what they do is take the largest container they have within the group. Regardless of who it belongs to and they fill the water like that. From biggest container going down to smallest container. This waste less water as in between changing containers there is always spillage. Also since water only comes for a certain amount of time this waste less time as you do not need to change containers as often. Also because there is less importance on container ownership in the end they all have to share the water collected.

Western society is administered by women, however, the rulers are mostly men of high finance. Think of the following families: Rockefeller, Rothschild, Warburg, Soros, etc. They are the ultra rich, so rich they keep themselves off the Forbes list. They run the world we know.

Women merely work for these rich men. Our politicians and academics are puppets. Men will work for them too, look at the military. Our society is falling apart by design, they know what they are doing, this is no accident. This is about global depopulation by any means.